KINGSTON CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON AIR QUALITY

KINGSTON CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON AIR QUALITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO COLLECTIVELY IMPROVE AIR QUALITY IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES

JANUARY 2020

The RBK Citizens’ Assembly The RBK Citizens’ Assembly was a group of 38 citizens broadly reflecting the population from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames who came together over two weekends to consider how to improve air quality in the borough. They were:

Angela, from South of the Borough

Angela, from Surbiton

Angelo, from Kingston Town

Anthony, from Maldens and Coombe

Barbara, from Maldens and Coombe

Caroline, from Surbiton

Cristina, from Surbiton

Christopher, from Kingston Town

Demetra, from Surbiton

Dennis, from Maldens and Coombe

Dharbi, from Kingston Town

Elle, from South of the Borough

Emma, from Surbiton

Farhan, from Maldens and Coombe

Ian, from Maldens and Coombe

Jade, from Surbiton

James, from Maldens and Coombe

Jean, from South of the Borough

Jeffrey, from Kingston Town

Jixing, from Kingston Town

John, from Kingston Town

John, from Maldens and Coombe

Lisa, from Kingston Town

Luanne, from South of the Borough

Mary, from Kingston Town

Masoumeh, from Surbiton

Mehrdad, from Kingston Town

Nikola, from Maldens and Coombe

Philip G., from Maldens and Coombe

Philip W., from Maldens and Coombe

Philippa, from Kingston Town

Sarah, from Surbiton

Sarfraz, from Maldens and Coombe

Sharada, from Surbiton

Thiago, from Kingston Town

Tom, from South of the Borough

Tony, from South of the Borough

Violet, from Kingston Town

1

Who was involved

Involve The Involve Foundation is the UK’s leading public participation charity, with a mission to put 1

people at the heart of decision-making. Involve ran the citizens’ assembly – facilitating and designing the process by which the assembly members learn, consider and come to recommendations about the topic. They also wrote this report on the outcomes of the citizens’ assembly.

Sortition Foundation The Sortition Foundation promotes the use of sortition (random selection) in 2

decision-making. They were responsible for recruiting people to take part in the citizens’ assembly. Their aim was to ensure the citizens’ assembly was broadly representative of the Kingston upon Thames community.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames commissioned the citizens’ assembly and will 3

receive its recommendations.

1 www.involve.org.uk/ 2 www.sortitionfoundation.org/ 3 https://www.kingston.gov.uk/

2

http://www.involve.org.uk/

http://www.sortitionfoundation.org/

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/

Acknowledgements Thank you to everyone who was involved in making the RBK Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality a success, including assembly members, speakers, facilitators, support team, the advisory group and contributors to the call for evidence.

3

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

01. INTRODUCTION 6

02. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY 11

03. CONCLUSIONS AND MESSAGES OF THE ASSEMBLY 21

04. WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBERS THOUGHT ABOUT THE ASSEMBLY 23

ANNEX 24

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The RBK Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality brought together 38 randomly selected residents from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames for two weekends during November and December 2019 to develop recommendations on how to collectively improve air quality in the borough.

Across the two weekends, the citizens’ assembly heard a range of evidence relating to the impact of air pollution and different possible solutions for tackling it.

Assembly members developed five recommendations, with each gaining over 85% support or strong support from the assembly. These were to:

1. Remove pollutants within school boundaries; 2. Prioritise changes to planning rules and enforcement to place indoor and outdoor air

quality as the highest priority; 3. Plan to urgently invest in greener and accessible transport and infrastructure for all; 4. Increase residents’ awareness of air pollution and encourage positive behaviour

change; 5. Accelerate the transition to sustainable vehicles.

The assembly members also developed a series of 26 actions across the recommendations, which are outlined in this report. All but one of these actions gained over 75% support or strong support from the assembly members. Six actions gained unanimous support or strong support from assembly members.

Assembly members made some concluding remarks and messages for RBK. As well as stating the science is clear, they concluded that the council should recognise the efforts of the assembly, take action to deliver the recommendations, make Kingston a leader, provide information to people and continue engagement.

Following the final weekend of the citizens’ assembly, the preliminary report and the experience of the assembly were presented to Full Council on 17 December 2019 by assembly members.

This final report will be presented to and discussed by the Environment and Sustainable Transport committee of the Royal Borough of Kingston Council in February 2020.

5

01. INTRODUCTION The RBK Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality brought together 38 randomly selected residents from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames for two weekends during November and December 2019.

The citizens’ assembly was set the task to develop recommendations in response to the question:

How do we collectively improve air quality in the borough?

Across the two weekends, the citizens’ assembly heard a range of evidence relating to the impact of air pollution and different possible solutions for tackling it. Having considered the issue, the citizens’ assembly developed five recommendations for improving air quality in the borough, each with a series of detailed actions that the council, residents and others should take.

This report sets out how the citizens’ assembly worked and the conclusions it reached. It has been written by Involve, based on the work and recommendations of the citizens’ assembly. We have sought to represent the citizens’ assembly as faithfully as possible – reporting its recommendations and conclusions as they were written and agreed by assembly members.

1.1 Assembly Members The members of the citizens’ assembly were recruited by the Sortition Foundation through a civic lottery sent to 7,000 households in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. Households that received the invitation were able to register their interest in participating.

The Sortition Foundation then randomly selected individuals from this pool to be broadly representative of the RBK population in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, geography, and socio-economic group.

Assembly members were given a £300 Thank You Gift (in cash or vouchers) to recognise the commitment and time they

6

gave. They were also paid travel expenses.

The Sortition Foundation recruited 40 assembly members in total and 38 assembly members aged from 17 to 79 years old completed the two weekends. The table contained in the annex compares the demographics of the citizens’ assembly to the local population against key stratification criteria.

1.2 Advisory Group The citizens’ assembly was overseen by an independent advisory group, which was tasked with providing advice and oversight to ensure the citizens’ assembly’s plans, evidence and materials were accurate, balanced and unbiased.

The members of the advisory group were:

● Professor Marta Blangiardo, Professor in Biostatistics at the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London (UK);

● Stephen Moorcroft, Director of Air Quality Consultants Ltd; ● Professor Prashant Kumar, Chair in Air Quality and Health, and the Founder Director of

Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), at the University of Surrey (UK); ● William Hicks, PhD research student at King’s College London.

The advisory group met on three occasions, as well as commenting on drafts of speaker lists and presentations remotely.

1.3 Stakeholder and Wider Engagement Ahead of the citizens’ assembly taking place, the council collected ideas for how air quality can be improved in Kingston upon Thames through an Air Quality Forum in July, its Let's Talk engagement portal and a number of “ideas trees” placed in community spaces in the borough.

The council also held an open call for evidence from Monday 9 September to Wednesday 9 October, during which it asked for suggestions of evidence that should be presented to speakers. 27 submissions were received, which were reviewed by the independent advisory group and council when selecting the evidence and witnesses to present to the assembly members.

All evidence sessions were filmed and are available on the council’s website. 4

4 https://www.kingston.gov.uk/CitizensAssembly 7

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/CitizensAssembly

1.4 The Work of the Citizens’ Assembly

Day One - Understanding the issue The first day of the citizens’ assembly sought to give assembly members the opportunity to:

1. Learn about the issue of air quality and the situation in Kingston; 2. Learn about the impacts of poor air quality; and, 3. Develop views on what impacts most need to be tackled.

The assembly began with a welcome from the lead facilitator, Tim Hughes (Involve), and Ian Thomas, CEO of Kingston’s Council.

The assembly members heard presentations from Dr Andrew Cross and Peter Bond from RBK about the current air quality situation in Kingston and the sources of emissions. Assembly members also heard from Professor Frank Kelly (King’s College London), Dr Ian Mudway (King’s College London), and Annette Pautz (Kingston Respiratory Health) about the impact of poor air quality.

Finally, assembly members heard from two local community members about their experience – Marilyn Mason (Kingston Environment Forum) and Caitlin Elster (local resident and parent). The assembly members were able to ask questions to the various speakers in a carousel format, where speakers rotated around the tables.

Assembly members then discussed the impacts of poor air quality that they had heard and developed a list of key impacts that they felt most needed to be tackled. These can be found in the annex.

Day Two - Learning about solutions The second day of the citizens’ assembly sought to give assembly members the opportunity to:

1. Learn about what is already happening in Kingston; 2. Understand the different types of solutions for poor air quality; and, 3. Start thinking about the solutions that could be applied to Kingston.

In the morning, Fiona Meads (RBK) presented to assembly members what the Council are already doing to tackle poor air quality. Assembly members then heard from and questioned speakers through a series of sessions on:

● Sustainable and active transport – Lucy Hayward-Speight (Transport for London) and Daniel Quan (WSP);

● Transport infrastructure and urban planning – Dr Mengqiu Cao (University of Westminster) and Beth Humphrey (City of London Corporation); and,

● Built environment and energy – Prof Jennifer Gabrys (University of Cambridge), Dr Ronita Bardhan (University of Cambridge), Michael Stothard (Saipem).

8

Assembly members were able to discuss the issues and ask questions of the speakers in a carousel format, where speakers rotated around the tables. Professor Frank Kelly (King’s College London) then made a final presentation on things for the assembly to consider when thinking about potential solutions.

The first weekend of the assembly ended with assembly members drawing up a longlist of the potential solutions that they had heard for them to return to in weekend two.

Day Three - Testing ideas The aims of the third day (weekend two) of the Kingston Citizens’ Assembly were to:

1. Hear and consider ideas from the wider community; and, 2. Agree the five themes that will be the focus for the assembly’s recommendations.

Peter Bond (RBK) and Peter Frost (Suffolk County Council) gave a recap and clarified questions that arose from the first weekend. Eight members of the local community then gave a short presentation each outlining their ideas to tackle poor air quality in the Borough in a lightning talk format. Assembly members were able to discuss the ideas and ask questions of the speakers in a carousel format, where speakers rotated around the tables.

The assembly members were then asked to develop and agree five priority themes to be the focus for their recommendations. These were based on the long-list of ideas that the assembly had generated during the first weekend and a rough theming of them by facilitators between weekends. Assembly members reviewed these in groups and proposed alterations to the draft themes. These changes were presented and discussed by the citizens’ assembly in plenary, until five themes were agreed through consensus. 5

5 Assembly members were given the option of selecting the five themes through a vote or by consensus, and chose to seek consensus.

9

Day Four - Developing the action plan On the final day, the Kingston Citizens’ Assembly aimed to:

1. Develop recommendations for how to collectively improve air quality in the borough; and,

2. Agree the recommendations to be included in the report.

Chris Doll (Kingston University) and Frank Kelly (King's College London) gave a presentation on things to think about such as co-benefits and levels of ambition when developing the recommendations.

Assembly members then proceeded to develop five recommendations on how do we collectively improve air quality in the borough, with rotation so that everyone was able to comment on all the recommendations.

Each table then took one recommendation and further refined and finalised the recommendation and included actions that would need to be taken. The finalised recommendations and actions were presented to the whole assembly, and assembly members were asked to indicate their overall preference for each recommendation (from strongly support to strongly oppose) in a secret ballot.

The results were presented to assembly members who then proceeded to develop three key messages they wanted to send to the council, residents or other organisations about each of the five recommendations.

The citizens’ assembly ended with a response and thank you to the assembly from Louise Footner, Director of Culture, Communities and Engagement (RBK).

After the citizens’ assembly Assembly members asked to be able to indicate their level of support for individual actions under each recommendation, so Involve gave them the opportunity to do this via a survey that was emailed to participants the day after the final day of the assembly. A threshold of 80% response rate was agreed with the assembly for the results to be included in the report. Over 90% of members responded and so the results are included in the following section.

10

02. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY The citizens’ assembly agreed five themes to be the focus for its recommendations:

1. Schools; 2. Planning and regulation; 3. Public and active transport; 4. Public education and behaviour change; 5. Sustainable vehicles.

These were developed into five specific recommendations, with a series of actions under each. The recommendations and actions are presented in no particular order.

Recommendation 1: Remove pollutants within school boundaries This recommendation emerged from the “schools” theme that was agreed by the citizens’ assembly. It was supported by 97% of assembly members, with half strongly supporting it. Only one assembly member strongly opposed the recommendation. Detailed comments from assembly members explaining their rationale can be found in the annex.

▉ Strongly Support ▉ Support ▉ Neither support nor oppose ▉ Oppose ▉ Strongly Oppose

Actions The citizens’ assembly developed the following six actions under this recommendation:

1.1. Stricter building regulations around schools; 1.2. Council to lobby government to assess schools on air quality and environmental

credentials of schools; 1.3. Effective plant placement for green screens around schools; 1.4. Disseminate the “Love Your Lungs” campaign (see recommendation 4) via schools,

possibly including a Childrens’ Assembly on Air Quality; 1.5. Temporary road closures and restrictions for parking and idling at relevant times; 1.6. Create a fleet of electric school buses & use electric vehicles for all external school activities.

11

All actions received a strong majority of support from assembly members, with only action 1.5. falling slightly short of 80% support.


Impacts and considerations The citizens’ assembly noted the following impacts and considerations for this recommendation.

IMPACTS CONSIDERATIONS

● Safeguards our children’s health. ● Action 1 – Reduces PM pollutants ● Action 2 – Makes schools more

accountable ● Action 3 – Educates the community as

a whole ● Action 4 – Shelters the children while

in the school grounds ● Action 5 – Minimises pollution intake

while on route to school ● Action 6 – Protecting from start to

finish

● Funding is required ● Screening can impact other groups of

neighbours ● Road closures can affect neighbouring roads ● Benefits – less vehicles on the road ● People need to understand evidence of why

e.g. road closures ● We have to get community on board – we

need to convince people of reasons ● Share the 2 eggs example with schools as a

campaign as something to be mindful of ● These actions show the right way for the

whole community to follow ● Cyclists on pavements could be a risk –

maybe better signage is needed

12

Recommendation 2: Prioritise changes to planning rules and enforcement to place indoor and outdoor air quality as the highest priority This recommendation emerged from the “planning and regulation” theme that was agreed by the citizens’ assembly. It was supported by 94% of assembly members, with two-thirds strongly supporting it. No assembly members opposed the recommendation. Detailed comments from assembly members explaining their rationale can be found in the annex.


Actions The citizens’ assembly developed five actions under this recommendation:

2.1. Target raising awareness and education of the community, backed up by effective enforcement;

2.2. Improve and enforce site construction regulations to exceed current air quality standards for equipment and working practices to reduce construction air borne pollutants by 50% over 2 years;

2.3. Encourage clean vehicle use by implementing an Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ); 2.4. Enable wider electric vehicle adoption and use within the borough through preferential

access to bus lanes and certain restricted access zones; 2.5. Create planning regulations that ensure new developments deliver clean air for

communities.

13

All actions received a strong majority of support from assembly members, with no actions falling short of 80% support.




● More informed choices/behaviours by citizens

● More responsible use of wood-burning stoves

● Less idling ● Improved construction practices ● Target 50% reduction in emissions from

domestic biomass and commercial cooking over 2 years

● Safer, less polluting building sites ● Healthier builders, happier

neighbourhoods, bigger lung capacity ● Better use of section 106 money

● Incorporate bike storage ● Ensure indoor air quality is not

compromised by energy efficiency initiatives

● Have social/workspaces nearby e.g. library ● Consider new housing incorporating

places to work nearby ● Have a target of 50% reduction in airborne

pollutants within 5 years ● Locations of new schools determined by

air quality ● Locations of facilities for vulnerable

groups – nurseries, care homes – determined by air quality

14

Recommendation 3: Plan to urgently invest in greener and accessible transport and infrastructure for all This recommendation emerged from the “public and active transport” theme that was agreed by the citizens’ assembly. It was supported by all assembly members, with three-quarters strongly supporting it. Detailed comments from assembly members explaining their rationale can be found in the annex.

Actions The citizens’ assembly developed the following five actions under this recommendation:

3.1. Replace diesel buses with electric buses as soon as possible, including school buses; 3.2. Increase the number of bus routes and the frequency of services; 3.3. Lobby Transport for London and South Western Railways for changes to the zones

system for the Kingston area resulting in cheaper fares; 3.4. Promote and expand public e-bikes and provide charging points across the borough; 3.5. Making footpaths and cycle lanes safe, accessible and attractive through design,

maintenance and greening.



15



● General ○ Publication and communication ○ Develop a 5-10year plan to provide

green and accessible transport system for all

● Walking and Cycling ○ Example – Portsmouth Road by St

Raphael – cycle only and no access for pedestrians so down to driver or crossings to get across road

○ Family-friendly cycle lane and footpaths ○ Making drop-off at schools more

difficult and promote walking to school ○ Add more cycle lanes where needed and

repaint all existing lanes ○ Additional (reminder) signage for mixed

cycle/pedestrian use routes ○ 100% joined up cycling lanes and bus

lanes ○ Copenhagen Crossings!

● Buses ○ 24hour public transport on some routes ○ Lines like K4 ○ Small services in residential areas ○ Out of borough

● Trains ○ Improve the affordability of family rail

fares ○ Increase peak hour capacities ○ Free train fare for school children

without companies raising prices for adults

○ Reduce parking charges at station for those who live far away

● Other ○ Introduce electric taxi to Kingston ○ Increase priority for Park and Ride

16

Recommendation 4: Increase residents’ awareness of air pollution and encourage positive behaviour change This recommendation emerged from the “public education and behaviour change” theme that was agreed by the citizens’ assembly. This recommendation was supported by 92% of assembly members, with two-thirds strongly supporting it. No assembly members opposed the recommendation. Detailed comments from assembly members explaining their rationale can be found in the annex.



4.1. Design and deliver a “Love Your Lungs” communications campaign to target all groups and demographics;

4.2. Increase number of monitoring stations and develop communications tools: a. Real time air quality levels (i.e. Red / Amber / Green visuals with percentage) (i.e.

mobile app); b. Liaise with Dyson to explore opportunity to have mobile monitoring systems (e.g.

kids backpack) and use it as a case study and communication opportunity; c. Equip schools with visible monitoring systems.

4.3. Design a rewards / incentives campaign to encourage individual behaviour change; 4.4. Incentivise public and private employers to utilize existing Employee Benefit Schemes

(e.g. Cycle to Work) and initiate new practices (e.g. lift sharing and flexible working); 4.5. Introduce an accreditation system for business to strive to achieve resulting in a

“Reward and Recognition” certification.

17





● Be mindful of RBK finances – can’t incentivise everything – budget constraints

● Who will deliver the actions? (e.g. social media – will it be done internally or outsourced?)

● Who would be impacted? ○ Co-benefits/negative impact? ○ Levers/barriers

18

Recommendation 5: Accelerate the transition to sustainable vehicles This recommendation emerged from the “sustainable vehicles” theme that was agreed by the citizens’ assembly. It was supported by 86% of assembly members, with over half strongly supporting it. Only two assembly members opposed the recommendation. Detailed comments from assembly members explaining their rationale can be found in the annex.



5.1. Enhance and simplify the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles; 5.2. Incentivise switching to electric vehicles for both private and organisational users; 5.3. RBK should lead by example and ensure its entire fleet is sustainable (e.g. electric,

hydrogen, etc.); 5.4. Increase restrictions for polluting vehicles through Ultra Low Emissions Zone in the

centre for example and Low Emissions Zone in the rest of the Borough; 5.5. Reintroduce Park & Ride using electric buses.

19

All actions received a strong majority of support from assembly members, with only action 5.5. falling slightly short of 80% support.




● The impact with affect everyone, resulting in cleaner air, better health and less strain on the NHS

● EVs will become easier to use, resulting in a quieter environment

● Action 1: ○ Ease of payment contactless on all

charging points ○ Unification of charging like Plug in

Suffolk ○ Improve charging points: ensure

the parking spaces are only for EVs ● Action 4:

○ We think this action should be a high priority

○ Implementation shouldn’t discriminate against people with lower incomes or disadvantaged groups

20

03. CONCLUSIONS AND MESSAGES OF THE ASSEMBLY The RBK Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality was the first citizens' assembly in the UK to specifically address the issue of air pollution.

The assembly members made a series of concluding remarks and messages for RBK. These are outlined in thematic groups, in no particular order, below.

The science is clear ● Science is clear: bad air quality is a hazard to everybody’s health whatever your age

Make Kingston a leader ● Kingston could be a leader in improving Air Quality in London! ● We realise this is an international issue, but we firmly believe that by taking local,

immediate action we can have an impact and ensure that it is scalable at a national level

Take action to deliver the recommendations ● Regardless of the administration elected in this borough we feel these

recommendations should be carried out ● Local authorities and central government need to act now to protect people from this

harm ● When will find out/how when the council will take our recommendations on board? ● Will participants receive feedback about the outcome and how it was used? ● Who will be responsible for implementing this in the council (elected)? How will they

report back? On what timescale? ● Concern that this process might just have been a tick box consultation exercise ● Demonstrating value for money. How much did this process cost? ● For each action have a target and deadline (SMART)

Provide information to people ● Wherever the council are creating restrictions they should provide information and

alternatives ● It is essential for all citizens to know about the risks and the ways they can take action

to protect themselves and others from air pollution

21

Recognise the efforts of the assembly ● The council should recognise we are passionate about these recommendations and

that we’ve worked hard to produce them ● Recognise the process was thorough and well done but feeling of frustration around

voting at the end 6

Continue engagement ● This assembly is the start of what should be an ongoing genuine involvement of

Kingston citizens in addressing Air Quality ○ Creatively get citizens/businesses/children involved in delivering/implementing

some of the actions to make them feel part of the process ○ E.g. get students to design mobile app rather than outsourcing it to private

consultancies ● Keep speakers involved as an expert panel ● Publicise the citizens’ assembly and organise more, including younger people, and

diversity in participants

6 Initially, the assembly was only asked to vote on their support for the five recommendations. Some assembly members were frustrated by this and felt that the assembly should also vote on the 26 actions. This was put to the assembly and it was agreed that an online vote would be held on the actions following the assembly.

22

04. WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBERS THOUGHT ABOUT THE ASSEMBLY After each weekend, the assembly members were asked to provide feedback on their experience. This was collected anonymously in feedback forms.

How did you feel about the assembly? “Thought provoking and stimulating”

“Extremely worthwhile and educational!”

“Excellently organised event. Congratulations to the organisers for making this a productive, effective and enjoyable event”

I am really surprised by this event. It exceeded my expectations and I am really pleased with everything I got. Thank you!”

“An informative event - I am glad I could contribute”

“A very stimulating experience - very well organised. Good mix of expert speakers and conversation. Facilitators expertly led and synthesized discussion”

“Thank you. Very well organised and a privilege to take part”

“A very well run and informative couple of weekends. Big thank you to Involve”

“Overall very good. I was happy with the last minute introduction of voting for the actions”

“A very informative and well prepared and delivered event”

23

ANNEX This annex contains further detailed information relating to the citizens’ assembly:

1. Link to folder containing materials from the weekends 2. Table of assembly member demographics 3. Impacts of air pollution 4. Bike Rack 5. Copy of ballot papers 6. Comments made on ballot papers (vote on Recommendations) 7. Comments made on ballot papers (vote on Actions)

1. Link to Materials All slides and materials from the citizens’ assembly are available at: https://www.cutt.ly/KingstonAirQuality

2. Table of assembly member demographics

Stratification Criteria Local Population

Assembly members

Comparison

Gender Female 51% 52.6% +1.6% Male 49% 47.4% -1.6%

Age 7 16-24 15.4% 10.5% -4.9% 25-44 38.6% 34.2% -4.4% 45-64 29.0% 36.8% +7.8% 65+ 16.9% 18.4% +1.5%

Ethnicity White 68% 68.5% +0.5% Black and Minority Ethnic 32% 31.5% -0.5%

Geography Kingston Town 28% 31.6% +3.6 Maldens and Coombe 30% 28.9% -1.1 South of the Borough 17% 15.8% -1.1 Surbiton 25% 23.7% -1.3

Socioeconomic ABC1 72% 68.4% -3.6% C2DE 28% 31.6% +3.6%

Travel mode Public Transport 21.1% 18.4% -2.7% Walk/Cycle/Other 34.9% 39.5% +4.6% Car 44% 42.1% -1.9%

Disability Yes 12% 10.5% -1.5% No 88% 89.5% +1.5%

7 There was a discrepancy in the recruitment sampling which led to a slight over recruitment of assembly members in the 45-64 age range

24

https://www.cutt.ly/KingstonAirQuality

3. Impacts of air pollution Summary of Day 1 discussions about the impacts of air pollution:

● Impact on children and young people – losing two eggs worth of lung capacity by 9 years old 8

● Impact on the elderly ● Does irreversible damage ● Lifelong impacts and contributes to dementia and alzheimers ● Invisible killer that affects everyone and we are not sufficiently aware of it ● Costs to NHS, social care and society – so funds are not available for other causes ● Particles do not go away but enter the food chain and environment ● Air pollution goes hand in hand with environmental damage ● Impact on wider quality of life – noise, not just pollution

4. Bike Rack ● More wheelchair access at stations means less need to use buses (and cars!) ● SWR – industrial dispute = more cars ● Having big roads at south of RBK would be helpful (M25) ● Airtext? And site with info - How to access presentations from speakers?

Where/when? How to get airtext? ● Guy Fawkes/Diwali ● What is the link to hay fever/pollen? ● Wildlife paths – impact, construction ● Discussion about population growth ● Why are we accepting population increase? And need for more buildings? ● CO2 levels and air quality? Climate change? ● Green waste collection – have to pay. Traffic queuing to enter Villiers Road, not

efficient – central collection ● 2 bonfires a year rule what is Kingston up to? Do they enforce it? ● Stats/info on Cat. Converters what don’t they do? Do they help? Crime rates ● We must take into consideration the needs of low-income families and lone parent

families ● All buses could be hybrid? ● Need to encourage cheaper fares on public transport ● Plastic particles being found in the air ● Role of solar/wind power? ● We need more data on the journeys in Kingston ● Schools actions could refer to all educational locations ● Make it compulsory to learn about benefits of sustainable and electric vehicles for all

new drivers. Part of the tests/assessments for driving licence ● Make sustainability and green energy a core part of school children’s curriculum

8 This impact was presented by Dr. Ian Mudway following research conducted in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. 25

5. Copy of ballot papers

6. Comments made on ballot papers – vote on recommendations Ballot comments - Recommendation 1

Strongly Support

● Identifies the key issues for effective improvement of air quality surrounding schools ● Better educated/healthier/happier children ● All good achievable actions that will positively impact on children’s health and awareness of

air pollution ● Children must be a priority because they suffer the most impact of pollution ● Children are very vulnerable to the effects of air pollution their health is paramount. Also,

they are the future they need to be educated about the effects of pollution to ensure the future of a clean planet

● Support greener/environments ● Kids are the future ● Young minds – development and health ● All very good ideas ● I have four children this is important for their future and future generations

26

● I support the focus on schools are the governing body to be able to do more for childrens’ health

● Very reasonable! I agree with the actions taken and strongly support ● Children are the ones who are most likely to be able to make a change! Strongly agree ● Traffic pollution in vicinity of schools is a major contributor to poor air quality & traffic

congestion. Major potential co-health benefits for children from walking to school ● Think of the kiddies! But more than ‘within boundaries’ – around schools ● I don’t agree with using Ofsted as a regulator

o I don’t agree with temporary road closures, unless it is within a large radius o Need more measurables – ‘within 5 years’ to be put in the report o To remove pollutants within school boundaries

● School children are the future of our nation & deserve to develop in a health environment ● The improved air quality to reduce respiratory illness in children ● Good idea

Support

● Please add targets for implementing recommendations ● To actions should put target and specific result that aims to get at the end ● Every single step towards our children’s health is paramount ● Electric school buses are a necessity, ‘green’ coverage will provide essential protection but

would need to be implemented speedily and effectively ● Children are most at risk so will make most difference, unsure about Ofsted involvement ● Should have included monitoring of air quality around schools, add realistic target for air

pollution in playground and outside school gate, not ‘remove’ as impossible but ‘reduce’ ● I was expecting here emphasis on education and awareness around the topic ● Don’t agree

○ Parking regulations – Not really applicable to secondary schools ● Ofsted ● Environmental impact assessment – can’t affect school placements as they are already

stretched ● Have young children at schools so thinking of limiting the damage to their health I agree

with the ideas ● Covers most points but from a school’s point of view including this in an OFSTED (capacity

inspection) is too much for schools. This is not up to schools! ● To protect health of children ● Don’t include Ofsted – use ‘Curriculum Planning’ so individual schools can represent their

areas problems or ‘positive actions’ ● Need a clear target

○ To include public schools, independent schools, nursery and so on ○ Schools are an ideal starting point to educate community regarding air quality and

its impacts ○ Schools and nurseries are quiet sensitive areas as it effects the most vulnerable part

of population, our children

Strongly Oppose

● TOTAL lack of incentivising ownership and usage of cycling by school children. This one action and habit can massively reduce pollution and congestion around schools

27

Ballot comments - Recommendation 2

Strongly Support

● The scope of the recommendation including a numerical target is comprehensive ● Happy to add the 50% over 5 years target ● Very specific and with details of the actions which will be taken by different groups and

organisations ● These important actions must be done by the borough in London to create a better place to

live in ● RBK must ensure regulations regarding existing and new buildings are enforced as a matter

of urgency ● Council has control over these issues such as planning issues and permissions given ● Rigorously enforce the clean air act with regards to domestic biomass and commercial

cooking emissions ● Fantastic, especially 50% reduction by 2025 ● The council can really drive some serious positive change through this recommendation ● Specifically supports many Kingston into low-emissions zone ● We have to look to the future and cut out air pollution ensuring new builds are constructed in

a way that is friendly to the environment ● Targets are the achievable?

○ Green spaces problems with management company charges? ● Great ideas ● For new builds it makes good sense, frequently will be revisited for changes ● All good ideas ● All good ideas ● EVs are the future (per experts) so the council should give incentives for the

residents/visitors to use the EVs in RBK area (charging points etc. including cheaper parking fees)

● Vital that council uses the regulatory/planning tools at its disposal to drive change that will deliver better air quality. Will compliment voluntary initiatives

● How realistic is the timeframe of ‘over 5 years’? Need to think about getting the construction contractors on board re. their materials and promote daily ‘clean up’ operations

● Like developing new community working environment to support work from home e.g. more workspace in the library which reduce mental problem of lonely working

● It will have wide impact on air quality throughout the community ● Construction work is very disrupting and need stricter controls. Utility companies i.e. water,

electric, gas, telephone, need to schedule and organise maintenance work better ● Some of the actions are similar to the recommendation number 5 ● RBC to enforce these recommendations especially with all the current building (commercial

and residential) tokens placed in Kingston Town Centre ● Good idea

Support

● Planning regulations as a tool to action remedies to improve air quality is a good idea ● I think the targets are needed, changes and regulations should be measured ● Constructing

○ Radius, the area of construction within one area to be controlled to minimised too much pollution in one area (would like this indeed)

○ However, ULEZ = great idea ● ULEZ I don’t believe will work as it will push into other boroughs. Construction agree on. Must

include a target e.g. 50% by 5 years

28

● Woodburning stoves should be banned especially if they are just used for aesthetic purposes. ULEZ in Kingston – not feasible until public transport is much more frequent and more routes

● Enforce laws and introduce powers to enable this ● Strongly support ULEZ

○ Think RBK should place significant restriction son low-density houses and encourage high-density development (but I am probably alone)

● Although do not agree with ULEZ action

Neither Support nor Oppose

● Many of the actions are a duplication of other recommendations or do not have direct impact on air pollution


Strongly Support

● Well defined theme. Strong and concise recommendation ● EV charging strategy needs a lot of investment ● Some of actions should be very specific but overall very effective recommendations ● Great ideas that must be applied urgently ● It is extremely important that TFL and SWT are made well aware of the residents of the

borough are made aware of zoning needs ● Capacity will need to increase if fares are cheaper but in general idea to provide greener

transport is very sensible ● Improving public transport is crucial – Ban TFL diesel buses from Kingston Town Centre

electric buses only ● Trains need to become cheaper and better quality. Cycle lanes need to be repainted ● I think it is a must that the council set an example as representing all citizens ● Public transport improvements will have wide positive impact on all residents (2 visitors) ● Currently transport system is adding to air pollution – we have to address this and find

solutions ● Support electric buses ● Very good – electric vehicles are the answer ● We all need to get to work by the best electric means ● I like ideas on zoning and electric buses. Cheaper fares are key ● Greener public transport is an important way forward ● We need a plan to implement all public transport as green and remove diesel vehicles ● Really like it and strongly agree! ● Zone system needs looking at. Promoting private companies like lime definitely needs

looking into ● Strong support for cheaper and more frequent rail – SWR currently has a monopoly almost

especially after December strives ○ 24-hour bus routes on hospital buses e.g. K2, K3 etc.

● Some great points there in and the council should implement these actions points urgently ● Essential to focus on ‘future proofing’ the transport system as transport emissions are bigger

source of airborne pollutants ● Increase transport links to and from other boroughs to reduce air pollution from private

29

vehicles and by using electric buses ● To reduce pollution and encourage people to use public transport ● The biggest area is to get rid of diesel buses ● Electric bus is the priority to reduce air pollution and encourage people to use green facilities ● By providing greener more accessible public transport private vehicle use will reduce,

resulting in cleaner air ● Again, some of the actions are similar to recommendation number 5

Support

● Especially creating more bus routes and better frequency ● Some of the actions are under the remit of TFL but overall the actions will bring out impact ● Don’t care about e-bikes. Behaviours and cycle lanes MUST join up ● Difficult for train fares to decrease ● This recommendation will provide a significant reduction in the cost/and efficiency in travel

in the borough


Strongly Support

● Campaigns are crucial for change by improving awareness ● Strongly agree with Love your Lungs and showing data! ● Ultimately reducing air pollution has to start with change, which can only be done through

educating and motivating people to behaviour change ● BUT public education is NOT an excuse for inaction ● Need more understanding re. cost and other agencies to get involved – would Dyson really

want to? ● Attractive, eye catching, easy reading symbols to make people aware – irrespective of

language ● The people need to be informed of problems of pollution and encouraged to work to improve

air quality ● Dyson idea very good ● Creating awareness towards behaviour change is particularly one of the most important

topics and the easiest to achieve ● Promotion of more real time data, awareness and incentives will foster positive change in

behaviour ● Many citizens are unaware of the severity of the problem. Public awareness campaign would

change this ● Have your lungs – meaningful, reaches all. With visual aspect showing image and impact ● LOVE your Lungs campaign making everyone aware and to visually see the important of air

quality ● Very important to make people ware of the urgent need to improve air quality to protect

health of all – particularly the young and elderly ● Kingston Borough need to raise awareness to its residents on the importance of how poor air

quality is affecting/impacting on peoples’ health, particularly on young people ● I support the idea of ‘live’ monitoring of pollution so awareness is raised and maintained ● Like the ideas presented and I strongly support them ● Awareness is still not strong enough/and awareness = + support for actions

30

● Must use map of air pollution in Kingston as central part of communications campaign ● Without education there can be no change providing incentives for change will assist in

encouraging change on an individual and group basis ● Education & behaviour change is vital however may be better ways of implementing it ● Positive statement of the intentions ● Some actions are very understanding and vital to public

Support

● This recommendation should have been part of Council’s plan for many years and should have been applied to all activities. Action 1 should be ‘Love your Life’ campaign because pollution can damage every part of the human function, including the brain

● The real time data will enable residents/visitors of ‘clean air’ position at any one time ● Action 5 was not very clear ● Definitely more air monitors need to be installed in ‘hotspots’ visual alerts also along roads a

good idea ● Not certain action 5 would motivate ● A lot of good actions, however needs more actions to trigger the ‘change’ ● Information at monitoring stations vital as long as it is current. Award scheme a good idea


● How is real-time air quality monitor going to immediately impact behaviour? – speed signs you still speed??

○ Effectiveness of campaign? Usually ‘encourage’ doesn’t work. Fines? ● Very few actions that educate on the dangers of air pollution and how to avoid it, which

would encourage behaviour change. Too many actions around monitoring ● Need to make green energy and sustainability a core part of school curriculum

○ Promote cycling!!! ○ Need to ensure all new drivers learn about EV and sustainability (make part of

driving and theory test)


Strongly Support

● Important to address given the negative impacts of vehicles to-date ● You can educate as much as you like but if the infrastructure isn’t there nothing will change.

This is most important issue to improving air quality & reducing climate change ● This recommendation directly targets diesel vehicle use–one of the main causes of air pollution ● Need to think about the timeframe – what does ‘accelerate’ mean? ● EVs promotion is a priority to reduce air pollution ● Needs implementing ASAP! ● Need support and incentive to make changes ● Kingston has to cut down on air pollution vehicles, but an alternative has to be on offer ● Brilliant ideas ● Electric vehicles first need to be made affordable in order to start action ● Essential! Electric vehicles will reduce air pollution as it is the biggest contributor ● Costly ☹ Support but ● Electric is the way forward, make it possible and easier to go electric

31

● We need to move into a new area of mobility ● Must invest heavily in EV. It is the way forward ● Want London ULEZ extension to incorporate Kingston ● This recommendation will have a significant improvement in the air quality in the borough ● Very low amount of electric vehicle chargers in borough many put people off buying EV –

increasing this will improve willing

Support

● The council’s own staff should be all EVs (like Sussex) as a starting point ● Should also consider a workplace parking levy ● Support ULEZ with restrictions introduction ● Based on expert’s advice, electric vehicles must be the way forward, therefore both carrots

(incentives) and sticks (restrictions) needed ● Park and ride good idea – as long as it can be monitored ● I am happy with the ideas but park and ride idea I am not a supporter ● These recommendations could be more expanded and have clear targets


● Agree with the council leading by example, LEZ already in place. Park and ride I don’t believe will work

● Yes, for public transports, not yet for private cars ○ Timeframe? ○ Young drivers – insurance already so expensive can’t afford upfront cost of EVs ○ Infrastructure needs to be available before majority make the switch to EVs ○ Park and ride – where in Kingston?

● I support the transition of moving vehicles to electric/hydrogen in particular on how we can make them cheaper/more accessible. I do not support park and ride, it is moving the problem elsewhere and not completely feasible

Oppose

● No to park and ride ● Kingston borough already low emissions zone. Whole borough should be ULEZ

7. Comments made on ballot papers – vote on actions

Ballot comments - Actions from Recommendation 1

● Not all schools need green walls - do not waste money. Perhaps some schools would rather build their own giving the students the experience,

● "Building regulations should be strictly enforced wherever they apply not just to near schools thus benefiting all.

● Creating a fleet of school buses etc. would be a long term project." ● Not sure who should be responsible for assessing schools on air quality and green

credentials but it should not be down to individual schools but the community and central government as a whole.

● some actions tend to move the problem away from school but do not eliminate it

32

● Table 1 agreed to rename the 'Love your Lungs' campaign to 'Love your Life' because pollutants damage all parts of the body's function, including the brain which affects children's ability to learn, impacting the quality of their entire life

● I oppose the closing of roads as I believe it will redistribute the problem of AQ rather than tackling the actual problem. Also, I believe that parents will drive to a certain point regardless. This should be changed to providing incentives for parents to not drive at all.

● Protecting our future generation is very important and teaching them the way forward ● It's really important that schools are assessed. ● These are all essential approaches to prioritise the improvement of children's health ● Love your Lungs campaign should be part of a wider education programme. The council

need to come up with plans, including dates for achieving all these ● Road closures and parking restrictions shouldn't apply to electric vehicles as they do not

increase air pollution ● Schools should be provided with tools to self assess air quality ● I am concerned that temporary road closures can cause a displacement effect and also

demonise families that have no choice but to drive. Electric vehicles will remove the problem in the long term.

● Temporary road closures will only work in certain schools where you can close the roads. I feel the anti idling would be a better idea !!


● Construction - not sure if 50% IN 2 YEARS is feasible/possible BUT strongly support suggestion.

● "I support wider electric vehicle adoption but not the using of bus lanes or exclusive areas as these will then become congested and it penalises people who may want an electric car but cannot afford one.

● Also, not sure how new developments can deliver clean air for communities, does this mean that solar panels, insulation and non-fossil fuel heating i.e. no gas will be installed during construction? "

● I note there are timelines in some of the above actions, but because we don't know what resources are available, timelines are not meaningful. When we asked about resource / budget information, we were told to assume that resources/budgets are potentially available to carry out our recommended actions in the short term.

● Amend local by-laws to higher standards for 'buildings, travel, & pollution' reduction ● 1st point was intended to include wood burning stoves. The last point is too vague and

should state zero carbon developments as mandatory, move away from gas to heat pumps, zone heating, etc.

● Leverage existing facilities eg libraries to create more working environment for the people who work from home. This solves lonely and relevantly mental problems.

● Must enforce current clean air act legislation ● I am concerned that access to bus lanes for electric vehicles will create traffic jams for

buses.


● Safe first stage - attractive not priority. not ugly or unattractive perhaps? ● Given that we are already investing millions on the bikes we may as well push for it

33

● No on e-bikes! ● The cost of this needs to be absorbed by existing resources and NOT an additional tax. ● Rezoning the Borough to enable cheaper rail fares, will lead to more people moving to the

Borough, leading to over population and increased property prices, resulting in poorer families being priced out of the Borough.

● As a public transport user I support these very much ● Repeat cycle/pedestrian signage to remind users of their duty of care ● These all need specific dates and targets, e.g. 1st one 50% within 5 years, 100% within 7

years. ● Replace all the buses to electric ones asap. Create cycle lane/green routes for families and

weekend life ● Consider extensive green screening of cycle lanes and walkways to make them more

pleasant


● I totally agree with a public campaign and the 'Love your Lungs' idea sounds good although we all learnt that it is not just our lungs being affected. Also, not sure what individual rewards may look like - cleaner air quality in itself is a reward.

● As noted earlier, 'Love your Lungs' should be broadened to 'Love your Life' campaign ● People can't change what they don't know about. Making people aware will help ● 1st one, A couple of leaflets in the library will be totally inadequate. Press, TV. Community

champions, schools, all need to be co-opted. ● Must use air quality map as central part of education campaign.


● Without the improvement in the charging infrastructure people will be very reluctant to switch to electric cars.

● "The majority of Kingston borough is already in the Low Emissions Zone (LEZ). All of the borough should be in the same zone, but the Ultra LEZ.

● Introducing a Park and Ride, even using electric buses, would only serve to move the use of vehicles from one part of the borough to another rather than reducing it. It could also lead to an increase of vehicle traffic into the borough. "

● we may find EV's not be that good but so far it looks like the only option on the table ● My opposition to the last point is that the impact that it may have on those who are not able

to get around easily. I would support this if there were exemptions made with a criteria. We would also need to improve the regularity/frequency of public transport, especially buses.

● There needs to be a target of numbers of chargers installed, small trials of 200 here and there is insufficient. How about 50% of lamposts to have chargers within 5 years.

● ULEZ applies on external polluting cars which pass through or drive in kingston ● Consider Sussex model - lack of charging infrastructure is major barrier to EV uptake ● Increasing restrictions for polluting vehicles could be implemented but at a later date, once

infrastructure supporting electrified vehicles is properly set up in the borough

34

The Involve Foundation 18 Victoria Park Square London E2 9PF

020 3745 4334 [email protected] @involveUK involve.org.uk

Documents

KINGSTON CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON AIR QUALITY